|
"And MOST of the C++ programmers I know don't think much of VC++6.0 and use CBuilder instead."
Shirly - thou knowest few programmers of C++. Except possibly those who program for free and not for their daily bread. CBuilder - Ok wheres the punch line ?
Richard
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
|
|
|
|
|
simons wrote:
the kind of webpplications being written today are really frightening
I, for one, would agree with that.
"But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument.
"Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you should stick to Interdev instead? 
// Ema Nymton
|
|
|
|
|
Ema Nymton wrote:
Maybe you should stick to Interdev instead?
Maybe you should think before you post?
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
Maybe you should think before you post?
No need to get angry, all I wanted to say is that if you are so fond of your old IDE, you should stick to it and not use .NET at all. If the addins you are using does not work in the new IDE you could make the choise to not use the new IDE or get a new set of addins.
The whole .NET ideology seems to me that one should be able to write the same program in any language (as long it's .NET compatible) with the same IDE, simple as that. To be able to do that the IDE must also have the same capabilites for each language. Why should we have three different IDEs for three languages if they all are capable of the same thing?
// Ema Nymton
|
|
|
|
|
Ema Nymton wrote:
Why should we have three different IDEs for three languages if they all are capable of the same thing?
And, having that, why would we need three languages any more?
Did it occur to you that we have all the different languages because they are, well, different?
Every language has it's powers and weaknesses, and every language has different purpose, syntax etc. They naturally require different IDE because what's good for VB doesn't make sense in C++ and vice versa.
If you put too much complexity into VB then you loose it's main advantage being a short learning curve. If you supply C++ with VB IDE you loose the main advantage of fine control over what's going on under the hood.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
If you put too much complexity into VB then you loose it's main advantage being a short learning curve. If you supply C++ with VB IDE you loose the main advantage of fine control over what's going on under the hood.
The problem with VB's RAD development lies in the fact that it's CBD(Component Based Development) methodology is too restrictive and doesn't allow the developers much power to fine tune stuff that VC++ users enjoy, as you rightly mentioned.
But this shouldn't be taken as a basis to conclude that RAD or CBD based IDE is to blame for VB's lack of power. In fact, for a long time C++, at least unofficially, has been supporting CBD methodology (such as properties, events etc.) using various Design Pattern paradigms. To become a devil's advocate, product like RadVC has used these C++ paradigms to implement RAD in native C++. This enables C++ developers to continue to exercise the full power and flexilibilty of native C++, yet making overall development a lot faster.
// Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++
http://www.capitolsoft.com
|
|
|
|
|
I'm there!!
I love C++ and have no real interest in moving to C# at this time. That's not to say that I won't move in that direction when I see the ROI for learning the language.
I really do like the way the IDE has moved in the direction of InterDev though.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
